Great arguments to use against Bible Thumpers!

[GeezUS]

Ok I am a philosopher and I have studied the bible. I am a bible thumper, because when a bible thumper thumps at me I thump right back:

Here is the argument, roughly mix it up as you need it, it applies to gayness in general:

The bible goes against Gayness (according to the thumpers) in primarily 3 ways and places. there may be others but they relate to these and the same arguments can apply.


I'll start with the last

Paul says that a man should not bed with a man, or a woman shall not bed with a woman.

Now we can take the more facetious (or ridiculous) approach that those who practice bible thumpery won't like:

1.) The bible does not define what a man or woman is.
1A)Is a man/woman defined by soul, sexual part, behavior, interests?
1AA)Many seem to call people gay based on behavior not sex, that does not fit.
1B)Many call people and/or Gay people "unmanly": thus they are not men and it is OK.

And of course it is not literally a bed though I know some that would actually argue that; to which you can facetiously say, "We sleep on large couches." Or something of that sort.

Genesis discusses the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now I am not going to type the stuff up but if you look at Genesis 18:23-33
You will see what the story may have been really meant for. The goal possibly having been to elucidate the nature of God's treatment of blasphemers, as it suggests with regards to Sodom and Gomorrah, and how God would not destroy anything if there was a chance he would destroy an innocent such as lot. But most thumpers won't like that one.
(It has Abraham repeating questions to ask if God would destroy the cities if they had x good people, if it had y...so on until 10 and then there is the show that 1, being lot, was considered) Basically it is to show how Just God is, I prefer to use the story to show how our justice system is inefficient and that we should at least try to take God's actions for example.

So we Have:
Genesis 19:4: "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:"

1) The story does not state specific sexual acts that are wrong.
2.) It does not state that it was wrong because men were trying to have sex with men: it is equally open to meaning that it was wrong for them to try to rape the Angels, not specifically have male on male sex. And definitely not male on male relations (be that cuddling..kissing... or what)

Lastly we have the story of Tamar in Genesis that states
Genesis 38: 9-10: "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass , when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also."

In that culture it was expected that should a brother die that the other brother serve children for that brother, this is what Onan was expected to do but did not and so it can be said what was wrong was that he had sex with her pointlessly. But most read that it was wrong to waste the seed specifically.

Now that is the primary argument that leads to it all. The only logical reason why God would have banned gay sex of any sort, or the sexual behaviors of Sodom and Gomorrah if that is the case, could only have been because it was in acts of spilling the seed. In other words wasting the sperm. In which case it all only applies to men. But then Paul says women as well (Maybe he was Jealous) but then that was added hundreds of years after Jesus was around, and Jesus did not address that himself. And so on... so it seems more likely female-female sex is irrelevant.
But regardless if one says maybe that it meant that it is wrong to have sex not for the sake of procreation, that then can be the only reason that it is wrong: in so far as it what destruction of potential life.

In other words at the most the bible only says it is wrong to have non procreative sex.

Thus if one is gay, lesbian, or bi, that is not wrong. The only thing that could be wrong is if they had sex. Of course that would leave out transgenderism period because the removal of the sexual organs could be considered waste of the seed. Just bare with me I'm going by what the thumpers can actually argue by the book.

The entire basis of the anti-homosexualism and what not, can only be based on the fact that one cannot spill their seed. A sufficient thumper might say that the bible says gay people are wrong (which it doesn't) and hold to that, but then one can at most point out that God doesn't do stupid things, or things that make no sense, or that are "just because" he gave us brains and I would think that he expected us to use logic. And by deduction the only reasonable 'reason' that something like that would be wrong was because of the seed spilling.

Anyways here is the rub: If anyone harps on someone for being Gay they are wrong it doesn't say gayness is wrong, it only implies the sex is (even if one thinks spilling seed is OK); but really the sex is wrong because it is the waste of the seed; how many thumpers do you know that have not wasted their seed?
Exactly! If someone rants on you for being gay ask them if they have ever had protected sex, or wasted the seed in some way, and if they say yes you need to only say they are hypocrites to their own religion and that they are just as bad if it is bad, and probably worse for being hypocrites.

Of course these aren't cure-alls because many don't listen to logic...but illogical arguments if shown illogical will not pass in most discussions including media discussions, and this should at least aid some too see.

In the end any act, even as close to sexual as one gets, would technically be reasonably permitted according to the bible so long as it did not result in cumming in a wasteful manner.

But then we have that a vivisection according to what I know does not remove the capacity to produce sperm it just prevents it from entering the mix.

Now I would appreciate these arguments being passed on, as I see that if they were viral it might aid many. E-mail them to a friend plz, or something. You may not like some but many will, and let it help who it may. Just because the blind won't see doesn't mean there aren't some with eyes who can.


(Disclaimer: Personally, I am straight and I am actually against non-procreative sex wherein it wastes a males (fertile) seed: that is to say not for the sake of love or life. But I don't see that as being worth pushing on anyone or even plausible to push in this world as it is now. I accept waste of seed being wrong only in so far as it is logically the destruction of potential life, in the more immediate knowable sense. And the counter part to this in women, while free to masturbate and such, would be wrongness in Abortion as it can be the destruction of potential life; again left to free choice.)

[marshlander]

Not sure I followed all your line of thinking, but thanks for taking the trouble.

I quite like the logic expressed in this essay

As for your namesake ... I came across this article on the web a few days ago.

I suppose Onan's problem with the smiting thing was that God seemed to be under the impression that women only incubated the foetus that the man implanted through intercourse rather than contributing to the process. He must have been awfully miffed when he discovered that 300 million (give or take) little swimmers per millilitre were wasted each time a man ejaculated whether or not a pregnancy resulted. I'm curious about your opinions about "wasted seed". Do you have a view on the ones that don't make it?

While you must obviously choose the way you behave there is a lot of evidence building that points to masturbation being a very healthy practice indeed.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn39...ancer.html

[OrphanPip]

I take a different approach. The superstitious ramblings of a Bronze Age tribe are irrelevant, point fini.

[GeezUS]

As for your namesake ... I came across this article on the web a few days ago.

I question the existence myself, but one must note that lack of written history is not lack of history. Plus I notice that the people mentioned as having been known in that time are all European, rather thin middle eastern and primarily roman or Greek, perhaps all, which shows that those that dominate the times tend to be the ones that write the history. I tend to think regardless of whether it was a single person, a group, or maybe a person with a different name is meaningless, something happened and it influenced stuff, I doubt that the magic performed though is any more than exaggerated stories. But from any passed down story there is room for interpolation of what root was most likely.

I suppose Onan's problem with the smiting thing was that God seemed to be under the impression that women only incubated the foetus that the man implanted through intercourse rather than contributing to the process. He must have been awfully miffed when he discovered that 300 million (give or take) little swimmers per millilitre were wasted each time a man ejaculated whether or not a pregnancy resulted. I'm curious about your opinions about "wasted seed". Do you have a view on the ones that don't make it?

One can equate a life to a degree of value of infinity. If such is the case then the loss of one is equal to the loss of the whole. In which case the destruction of the sperm is the loss of that one that might have made it. Even if there is failure then to intentionally cause waste outside of attempt to allow growth would seem to be a direct intentional alteration of what life would have come otherwise. However i am quite open to being argued, as I am not griped onto such, I am awaiting to see these things as not so logical if that is the case, or plausible, I imagine that if it is it will soak in. Regardless that doesn't mean my intention is to find an excuse to masturbate. Rather I would like to see an explanation that validates the typical behavior of humanity as of present. That would be pleasing, personally I find other reasons such as to avoid conditioning that with respect to imagery leads to the objectification of in my case the female, and I feel overall detracts from love by associating love to a symbol, the body, that has the tendency to become boring after excessive intercourse. Which is a common destructing factor in many relationships these days, marriages and the like. Do we not here people say one needs a good sex life to hold the marriage together? I find that the only reason sex is of the feeling of love is due to the association it has had with love throughout history that has led to conditioning passed on even by genetics. In so as it is detrimental I see reason to avoid it, and like wise not contribute to its conditioning in others by example or behavioristic genetic passing by reproduction. And I think many would benefit from seeing that it really has no relation to love other then psycho-symbolically.

While you must obviously choose the way you behave there is a lot of evidence building that points to masturbation being a very healthy practice indeed.

Perhaps I should specify ejaculation. Maturation or rather message of the sexual organ i do recognize as possibly beneficial, specifically the section between the sack and the anus. It allows for blood flow much of which is detremented by our current sedentary life style and tendency to sit so often; which leads to reduction in the production and sustaining of produced sperm. Likewise I should point out that while we don't know when the sperm dies in the testicles we do know that it does or at least that it has a tendency to reduce in fertility as time progresses, as such one who has not masturbated is not very likely to impregnate a woman on the first try unless they commonly have wet dreams.

[GeezUS]

I take a different approach. The superstitious ramblings of a Bronze Age tribe are irrelevant, point fini.

I tend to think everything is but speculation, all we can go by is probability. And indeed many of the things considered were illogical. But many of the things were valuable and are what informed our current morals of those both atheist or otherwise. For example personally I think that God is The Everything, not some personified, or otherwise partial-to-the-universe entity. Like wise I still find such as plausibly sentient given the probability of infinite complexity of which our own minds are but a subset...

[OrphanPip]

I tend to think everything is but speculation, all we can go by is probability. And indeed many of the things considered were illogical. But many of the things were valuable and are what informed our current morals of those both atheist or otherwise. For example personally I think that God is The Everything, not some personified, or otherwise partial-to-the-universe entity. Like wise I still find such as plausibly sentient given the probability of infinite complexity of which our own minds are but a subset...

No, I think my morals derive more directly from Enlightenment ideas drawing off Greco-Roman ideas. Even with that, I think it is silly to act as if the Israelites or early Christians had some sort of special insight into morality. There is generally little variance amongst moral principles between different groups. Looking to the values and ideas, which is problematized by the issue of authorial intent being impossible to fully access, of people who lived in different circumstances and had fundamentally different views of what is right or wrong is not a useful exercise.

I'm fond of the Old and New Testaments as cultural documents and great works of literature (there is a quote from a religious poem by an Anglican minister in my signature on top of that). However, we rarely see people argue we should use the Grecian model of heroism from the Iliad as a moral compass, even though Greek philosophy has had a major impact on the development of Western values.

[ceez]

bible thumping is a sin, your judging others witch is a sin. I just wish they would follow their religions and stop the hate.

[SlipknotRlZZ]

I just say 'God doesn't hate' and that ends it.

[GeezUS]

No, I think my morals derive more directly from Enlightenment ideas drawing off Greco-Roman ideas.

so you do not hold to any of the enlightenment ideas specifaclly informed by those who were influenced by religion? And yet the greeco-romans were religious themselves, and much of the enlightenment if not most was a result of christian thinkers.

Even with that, I think it is silly to act as if the Israelites or early Christians had some sort of special insight into morality. There is generally little variance amongst moral principles between different groups.

I agree but nonetheless much of it came of relation to Ultimates, or Gods, the spiritual. I would not say that anyone is privileged, some are given to some knowledge some are given to other knowledge. I would think there is value in it all, even if that value is in understanding others, though I see more to it then that alone.

Looking to the values and ideas, which is problematized by the issue of authorial intent being impossible to fully access, of people who lived in different circumstances and had fundamentally different views of what is right or wrong is not a useful exercise.

Why stick only to what is close in access when one can travel as well? No thing has full clarity, and looking into all aspects of life aids the understanding of more of it, nothing is of no value.

I'm fond of the Old and New Testaments as cultural documents and great works of literature (there is a quote from a religious poem by an Anglican minister in my signature on top of that). However, we rarely see people argue we should use the Grecian model of heroism from the Iliad as a moral compass, even though Greek philosophy has had a major impact on the development of Western values.

You'd be surprised the number of people who follow greco-roman influences, philosophers especially, I doubt you will face a philosophy class without reading something of Plato, for example. It is simply like many things in reality not on the mainstream and thus not given much media attention, which focus generally on the immediate anyways.

[GeezUS]

bible thumping is a sin, your judging others witch is a sin. I just wish they would follow their religions and stop the hate.

To think I personally am judging others is a judgment of my character based on interpretation of word usage... The word judgment these days applies to more then what was meant of those times. It is more a matter of judging one as specifically bad or not, when in reality it is reasonable to use discretion But avoid condemning, or placing one into some category with absolutist certainty, or by some fallacious logic. As if we can actually know what a person is. Indeed many bible thumpers condemn others out of ignorance, for that the others may be ignorant, not realizing that another being ignorant is as much a problem of society as a whole as it is that of the individual. Rather they would punish and revenge then work for correctional education or preventative education.